Translation: 9. From Muhammad ibn ‘Isa ibn ‘Ubaid (thiqa) from Yunus ibn ‘Abd ur-Rahmaan (thiqa) from ‘Abd us-Samad ibn Basheer (thiqa) from Abu Ja’far (a.s.). He (‘Abd us-Samad) said: “I heard Abu Ja’far (a.s.) saying that: ‘Behind this sun are forty such suns, and what is between a sun to another sun is forty years. Over there are many creations who do not know whether or not Allah created Adam (a.s.). And behind this moon of yours are forty such moons, and what is between a moon to another moon is forty days. Over there are many creations who do not know whether or not Allah created Adam (a.s.). They have been inspired, just like the Bee has been inspired, to curse the first and the second, all the time. And with them are Angels, who torture them when they do not curse the two.”

These are well-known narrators. There can be no dispute about Yunus and `Abd ul-Samad. The only thing anyone can say is: “Ibn ul-Waleed said that what was narrated from Yunus by Muhammad ibn `Isa ibn `Ubaid is weak, and Sheikh Tusi weakened Muhammad ibn `Isa ibn `Ubaid.”

The scholars of Rijal all rejected both these opinions. Al-Najashi in his Rijal says:

Al-Najashi said: “Muhammad ibn `Isa ibn `Ubaid ibn Yaqteen ibn Musa, client of Asad ibn Khuzayma. Abu Ja`far. Distinguished from our companions. Trustworthy, venerable. Many marrations. Good in compiling (hadith). Narrated from Abu Ja`far The Second (as) with letters and orally. Abu Ja`far ibn Babaweeh mentioned, from Ibn ul-Waleed, that he said: ‘What is from Muhammad ibn `Isa alone from the books of Yunus and his Hadith is not reliable.’ And I saw our companions rejecting this opinion, saying: ‘Who is of likeness to Abu Ja`far Muhammad ibn `Isa?'”

The opinion of Ibn ul-Waleed was not accepted by the scholars, except for that Sheikh Tusi weakened Muhammad ibn `Isa. al-Syed ul-Khoe’i in his Mu`jam Rijal il-Hadith mentions the opinion of Sheikh Tusi:

Al-Khoe’i refutes this position by explaining that the opinion of Sheikh Tusi was a mistake due to him thinking that Ibn ul-Waleed thought that everything Muhammad ibn ‘Isa narrated was Dha’eef. He also says about the opinion of Ibn ul-Waleed:

وهذا الوجه مبني على اجتهاد ابن الوليد ورأيه ، ووجهه عندنا غير ظاهر
“This opinion based upon the Ijtihad of Ibn ul-Waleed, and this opinion with us is not evident.”

Al-Khoe’i also mentioned the view regarding the extremism of Muhammad ibn `Isa and says:

أن الشيخ نسب القول بغلو محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد إلى قائل مجهول ، والظاهر أن هذا القول على خلاف الواقع ، لقول ابن نوح أنه كان على ظاهر العدالة والثقة
“…that Sheikh Tusi quoted the words regarding the extremism (ghuloo) of Muhammad ibn `Isa from an unknown person, and these words are apparently in contradiction to the reality, because Ibn Nuh said that he was of those who were just and trustworthy.”

In conclusion: Muhammad ibn `Isa ibn `Ubaid is trustworthy and this is what is established by all the scholars, except for Ibn ul-Waleed and Sheikh Tusi. But the opinion of Ibn ul-Waleed is without evidence, and Sheikh Tusi based himself upon his opinion, and wrongly assumed that his opinion meant that everything that Muhammad ibn `Isa ibn `Ubaid narrated was dha’eef. However, this is not so. Moreover, none of the scholars accepted these opinions. Al-Khoe’i also refutes the view of his extremism.

Therefore, what is established about this chain is that it is authentic.